My belief is that highlighting exactly why the old system is failing so epically to those caught in it is part of the solution.

Then you're on the right track with this system. And I applaud you for never attempting to force your decisions on someone else.

Thank you! Since I'm a software developer by trade I tend to see problems through those glasses on the other hand I love Firefly (an old canceled show) and believe no one should have the sky taken from them!

It was a cunning plan to have the funny man be the money fan of the punning clan.1J13NBTKiV8xrAo2dwaD4LhWs3zPobhh5S

Thank you! Since I'm a software developer by trade I tend to see problems through those glasses on the other hand I love Firefly (an old canceled show) and believe no one should have the sky taken from them!

Thank you! Since I'm a software developer by trade I tend to see problems through those glasses on the other hand I love Firefly (an old canceled show) and believe no one should have the sky taken from them!

I'm a Browncoat myself.

+1

It was a cunning plan to have the funny man be the money fan of the punning clan.1J13NBTKiV8xrAo2dwaD4LhWs3zPobhh5S

So I take it that you don't want folk to have an opinion? Or at least that they ought not to be able to state that opinion?

If you have a family for example you have to sometimes take opinions and address local issues, like whose doing the dishes tonight or what channel will the tv be on, and so on. If you think that hundreds of millions of people, many of whom have been to court numerous times, are simply going start working together without being allowed some place to make their opinions heard or to resolve issues then it's going to be very difficult to have this discussion.

I agree with your position that we should all be involved , as I am also, and commend you for that however why not organize that involvement in a way that can be globally and locally effective and efficient. The 51% straw-man you keep mentioning has been addressed in the Bitcoin arena why not in the Political one also?

Additionally not everyone in the world is going to sit back and relax once they've found you have no organized sense of defense or policy are they? Does China agree with your NAP for instance? However a hive mind driven by pure democracy sounds quite powerful and agile to me particularly if those voting understand the idea of doing no harm. We cut out the middle men, who have so obviously been corrupted in many cases, and go directly to the source.

There is an argument relating to the NAP and private defense somewhere, but in a way this proposal could easily make all defense private for the whole country, while the watchful eye of the public could limit it's extent, rather than the case now where a limited few spend huge amounts of our money and resources on many wasteful projects with little oversight.

The NAP can't forget that each of us is sharing this one resource we all live on, it will not silence the opposition and will not serve to remove even a single persons opinion.

I'm not talking about tweaking, this is a major change. For example I personally use so little material I rarely put my garbage out but will this society and political system ever be able to reduce my taxes because of that. I really don't think so, no one has ever been able to change that except perhaps with private removal, but then what about the old lady who can't afford it, isn't the NAP about "do no harm"? Or are you just saying don't actively harm anyone but if they suffer it's not your fault? This proposal is trying to find the system that removes the need for undue trust, which has proven necessary for Bitcoin, while allowing even the most disadvantaged a say and position. Why is this such a bad idea?

Should we for example dismantle the national parks system, since private enterprise could use the space or drill for oil, who gets harmed if we do that? Is hydro-fracking a good thing? It is if it gets us cheaper gas but what about the people whose water is being contaminated. Do we bother helping the UK if Germany invades it again?

Would New Yorkers still be able to drink from 24oz cups if the New Yorkers had actually been asked?

Even some sort of NAP based system needs a process to track difficult issues and spot places where harm is being done, at least I would imagine so? Or is it a magic word that just makes it all work? If so why didn't Bitcoin just work, why do we need all this crazy cryptography?

It's interesting to hear children talk about where meat and vegetables come from, "the supermarket daddy..". Who in your NAP society will talk to the Russians or the Chinese when they decide you've gone weak or negotiate with Mon Santo once they own all the food?

The only way the UK monarchy will ever be deposed is by referendum, this proposal allows that type of referendum to be decided not by an unelected House of Lords but by the decision of the people.

Interestingly, whether fairly or not, you cite me as wanting to tweak the system but you yourself seem to want to do less to it than that?

You said a lot of good stuff here.

I've been trying to say stuff like this for a long time. NAP has zero unification of community driven unified agendas needed to get us to protect resources which would otherwise be slowly (if not quickly) destroyed because others are selfish, ignorant, or both.

The landscape as a checkerboard of 64 squares:

The checkerboard (composed of black and white squares) where half are white and half are black and one color has value X and the other color has value Y is not valued at 32X + 32Y! This is due to the fact that each square loses value from the edges it shares with a square of a different color.

The landscape or society as a large square with 64 squares where the western half is white and the eastern half is black:

The shared edges between black and white in the second case are less, and thus each colored area has greater value. It's value comes closer to 32X + 32Y.

NAP gravitates to the checkerboard, where each individual is free to either preserve or fuck up his parcel.

Not only does it have consequences related the Earth's natural capital (which ultimately everything, including human society is derived from and supported by), it has effects with regard to urban planning.

So I take it that you don't want folk to have an opinion? Or at least that they ought not to be able to state that opinion?

If you have a family for example you have to sometimes take opinions and address local issues, like whose doing the dishes tonight or what channel will the tv be on, and so on. If you think that hundreds of millions of people, many of whom have been to court numerous times, are simply going start working together without being allowed some place to make their opinions heard or to resolve issues then it's going to be very difficult to have this discussion.

I agree with your position that we should all be involved , as I am also, and commend you for that however why not organize that involvement in a way that can be globally and locally effective and efficient. The 51% straw-man you keep mentioning has been addressed in the Bitcoin arena why not in the Political one also?

Additionally not everyone in the world is going to sit back and relax once they've found you have no organized sense of defense or policy are they? Does China agree with your NAP for instance? However a hive mind driven by pure democracy sounds quite powerful and agile to me particularly if those voting understand the idea of doing no harm. We cut out the middle men, who have so obviously been corrupted in many cases, and go directly to the source.

There is an argument relating to the NAP and private defense somewhere, but in a way this proposal could easily make all defense private for the whole country, while the watchful eye of the public could limit it's extent, rather than the case now where a limited few spend huge amounts of our money and resources on many wasteful projects with little oversight.

The NAP can't forget that each of us is sharing this one resource we all live on, it will not silence the opposition and will not serve to remove even a single persons opinion.

I'm not talking about tweaking, this is a major change. For example I personally use so little material I rarely put my garbage out but will this society and political system ever be able to reduce my taxes because of that. I really don't think so, no one has ever been able to change that except perhaps with private removal, but then what about the old lady who can't afford it, isn't the NAP about "do no harm"? Or are you just saying don't actively harm anyone but if they suffer it's not your fault? This proposal is trying to find the system that removes the need for undue trust, which has proven necessary for Bitcoin, while allowing even the most disadvantaged a say and position. Why is this such a bad idea?

Should we for example dismantle the national parks system, since private enterprise could use the space or drill for oil, who gets harmed if we do that? Is hydro-fracking a good thing? It is if it gets us cheaper gas but what about the people whose water is being contaminated. Do we bother helping the UK if Germany invades it again?

Would New Yorkers still be able to drink from 24oz cups if the New Yorkers had actually been asked?

Even some sort of NAP based system needs a process to track difficult issues and spot places where harm is being done, at least I would imagine so? Or is it a magic word that just makes it all work? If so why didn't Bitcoin just work, why do we need all this crazy cryptography?

It's interesting to hear children talk about where meat and vegetables come from, "the supermarket daddy..". Who in your NAP society will talk to the Russians or the Chinese when they decide you've gone weak or negotiate with Mon Santo once they own all the food?

The only way the UK monarchy will ever be deposed is by referendum, this proposal allows that type of referendum to be decided not by an unelected House of Lords but by the decision of the people.

Interestingly, whether fairly or not, you cite me as wanting to tweak the system but you yourself seem to want to do less to it than that?

You said a lot of good stuff here.

I've been trying to say stuff like this for a long time. NAP has zero unification of community driven unified agendas needed to get us to protect resources which would otherwise be slowly (if not quickly) destroyed because others are selfish, ignorant, or both.

The landscape as a checkerboard of 64 squares:

The checkerboard (composed of black and white squares) where half are white and half are black and one color has value X and the other color has value Y is not valued at 32X + 32Y! This is due to the fact that each square loses value from the edges it shares with a square of a different color.

The landscape or society as a large square with 64 squares where the western half is white and the eastern half is black:

The shared edges between black and white in the second case are less, and thus each colored area has greater value. It's value comes closer to 32X + 32Y.

NAP gravitates to the checkerboard, where each individual is free to either preserve or fuck up his parcel.

Not only does it have consequences related the Earth's natural capital (which ultimately everything, including human society is derived from and supported by), it has effects with regard to urban planning.

Thank you for the link I like the analogy here.

Interestingly the board of the multiverse has no ultimate edges but does have the checkerboard. I mention this since although we are forced to make decisions that ultimately effect everyone and that we must monitor our consumption of resources we are in effect in an environment with no resource limitations.

It was a cunning plan to have the funny man be the money fan of the punning clan.1J13NBTKiV8xrAo2dwaD4LhWs3zPobhh5S

2. How much untapped and unstudied information and diversity is there in a tropical rainforest here on Earth vs. the atmosphere of Jupiter or the surface of Pluto?

3. How many Atlantic Bluefin Tuna do we have 'free' access to in the Universe today, tomorrow, or 100 years from now.

4. What are the currently most viable interstellar propulsion methods being studied today?

5. What is the cost of antimatter production for a propulsion system using antimatter?

6. Do you believe the Bussard Ramjet is feasible?

7. Are you familiar with the Icarus Project?

8. Have you read Entering Space by Robert Zubrin?

9. Have you read the book Interstellar Migrations and the Human Experience?

10. Do you regularly read the blog Centauri-dreams.org?

11. Do you understand the value of biodiversity?

12. What is the average velocity per year required for animal species to relocate to new habitats in order to remain viable due to climate change, and what are the barriers which prevent such relocation, and what effect will that have on biodiversity, and will we travel to the stars in time for this to be a non-issue?

13. Do you believe that the film Avatar serves as a model for the near term?

14. Do you really believe your last remark carries any substance at all?

2. How much untapped and unstudied information and diversity is there in a tropical rainforest here on Earth vs. the atmosphere of Jupiter or the surface of Pluto?

3. How many Atlantic Bluefin Tuna do we have 'free' access to in the Universe today, tomorrow, or 100 years from now.

4. What are the currently most viable interstellar propulsion methods being studied today?

5. What is the cost of antimatter production for a propulsion system using antimatter?

6. Do you believe the Bussard Ramjet is feasible?

7. Are you familiar with the Icarus Project?

8. Have you read Entering Space by Robert Zubrin?

9. Have you read the book Interstellar Migrations and the Human Experience?

10. Do you regularly read the blog Centauri-dreams.org?

11. Do you understand the value of biodiversity?

12. What is the average velocity per year required for animal species to relocate to new habitats in order to remain viable due to climate change, and what are the barriers which prevent such relocation, and what effect will that have on biodiversity, and will we travel to the stars in time for this to be a non-issue?

13. Do you believe that the film Avatar serves as a model for the near term?

14. Do you really believe your last remark carries any substance at all?

Free in the sense that there will always be stuff there. Admittedly acquisition and balance are at issue and this adds to the so called "cost" which in the end would seem to be largely emotional as the candor of your post might suggest especially since that one liner has elicited a fairly hefty response (point 14).

I could barrage you with all the philosophers and science I read every day but I'd prefer not to embarrass either of us and I appreciate your references. Let me clarify somewhat the position I'm trying to relay.

Bitcoin will never run out even from a mining perspective since its precision is really only dependent on the precision any future machine can produce. As a Lisp developer I'm used to arbitrary precision already, so from Zeno it's easy to see that halving the production rate every so often can never really reduce that number to zero. There's an amusing argument elsewhere saying that Bitcoin's precision isn't really a useful feature and yet Bitcoin's tiny fees and "end game" mean it is a requirement.

As mentioned elsewhere in the post I acknowledge the need for us to take care with what we have here but wished to broaden the discussion to include all that is beyond our own tiny little cheque and edge in the cosmos and you seem to agree. I guess I'm saying that sometimes the edge is very wide, that's all.

My own philosophy and scientific search would suggest there are infinites everywhere, not just in the size of the multiverse but at every point in it so I guess to point 14 I'd say yes quite a bit of weight. Sometimes a one liner can incite a firestorm and that's a good thing. Humans are the only species that have to pay to live, I have to wonder why that is.

If scientists stubbornly continue to imagine there are no infinites their science will stubbornly refuse to predict them?

It was a cunning plan to have the funny man be the money fan of the punning clan.1J13NBTKiV8xrAo2dwaD4LhWs3zPobhh5S

Thank you for those excellent links and references FirstAscent!I do apologize for my pat one liner but hey this is fun and in answering your other points I will endeavor to persevere!

I hope so, because your last post had a lot fluffy nonsense and was very low on informational content, data and facts. Sad to say it, as the post you made which I originally responded to in this thread showed such promise.

And I suggest you learn more about edge effects, and apply their concept at a lower level where it actually is relevant. Think in terms of square miles.

As a Lisp developer I'm used to arbitrary precision already, so from Zeno it's easy to see that halving the production rate every so often can never really reduce that number to zero. There's an amusing argument elsewhere saying that Bitcoin's precision isn't really a useful feature and yet Bitcoin's tiny fees and "end game" mean it is a requirement.

Also...

I don't think Bitcoin is relevant to my points, and it certainly has nothing to do with finite resources. The analogy falls flat on its face.

As for Lisp, well, all I have to say is this: S-expressions beat XML, code is data, Lisp macros are great, all languages keep adding a little bit more until they become Lisp, SHRDLU was pretty damn impressive, and so was Lenat's AM and EURISKO, and Schank's AI programs were pretty awesome as well. Oh, and Paul Graham writes interesting stuff. So there.

As a Lisp developer I'm used to arbitrary precision already, so from Zeno it's easy to see that halving the production rate every so often can never really reduce that number to zero. There's an amusing argument elsewhere saying that Bitcoin's precision isn't really a useful feature and yet Bitcoin's tiny fees and "end game" mean it is a requirement.

Also...

I don't think Bitcoin is relevant to my points, and it certainly has nothing to do with finite resources. The analogy falls flat on its face.

As for Lisp, well, all I have to say is this: S-expressions beat XML, code is data, Lisp macros are great, all languages keep adding a little bit more until they become Lisp, SHRDLU was pretty damn impressive, and so was Lenat's AM and EURISKO, and Schank's AI programs were pretty awesome as well. Oh, and Paul Graham writes interesting stuff. So there.

Bitcoin is a finite/infinite resource?

[snip]"Do you believe that the film Avatar serves as a model for the near term?"[/snip]Did you expect me to answer that?

Why do you want to make this an unpleasant conversation?

Lisp rocks

It was a cunning plan to have the funny man be the money fan of the punning clan.1J13NBTKiV8xrAo2dwaD4LhWs3zPobhh5S

Thank you for those excellent links and references FirstAscent!I do apologize for my pat one liner but hey this is fun and in answering your other points I will endeavor to persevere!

I hope so, because your last post had a lot fluffy nonsense and was very low on informational content, data and facts. Sad to say it, as the post you made which I originally responded to in this thread showed such promise.

And I suggest you learn more about edge effects, and apply their concept at a lower level where it actually is relevant. Think in terms of square miles.

So you find Zeno fluffy then?

It was a cunning plan to have the funny man be the money fan of the punning clan.1J13NBTKiV8xrAo2dwaD4LhWs3zPobhh5S

Please answer the questions I posed to you, as you made the claim that the Universe is essentially our free lunch.

I'm really curious why you don't rate Math along with the other things you think are so important like my position on a movie I may not have seen for example?

I would probably go on to say that some of your questions seem rather like "fluffy nonsense" but I prefer to keep the conversation less inflammatory and out of grade school and not for example fire back with a question like "How many dinosaurs are left on the planet?", although it does seem apropos.

A discourse on the Infinite should probably have started with a discussion of fractals or Cantor and Diagonalization not a list of seemingly pointed questions. Pointing at what is yet to be ascertained and no less interesting, though I assume you have some sort of trump card to play in an argument manufactured out of a simple comment and thin air.

The universe (to say nothing of the multiverse) is the ultimate free lunch since it itself, from Big Bang theory, is something out of nothing. From Quantum theory there is no such thing as nothing and yet somehow embedded in human society and the human psyche is the idea that there is no free lunch, so much so that we enslave ourselves and others by insisting that there can be nothing for nothing. Our schools, tenure, business/governments/trolls then go on to enforce this fallacy and see us languishing in failed closed time loops for eternity.

Einstein wasted thirty years of his life looking for the wrong theory of unification because his own religious beliefs forced him to imagine "God does not play dice." and Hawking willfully rejects an infinite universe not because of a failing in Math though he scrambles to design his theories to make it so, but why then? Could that also be an emotional hang up?

His argument is so weak as to beggar the question what he was thinking "The universe can't have infinite suns because then the sky would be ablaze.". Why not place the majority so far away, in theory, such that we'll never see or feel any of them? Isn't that how infinites work?

You might find emotions "fluffy nonsense", if that's what you are referring to, but they've played a part in keeping Humans in the dark ages ever since they existed. However useful or non-sensical they can be they certainly are not fluffy and when thrown about like a battering ram not pleasant at all.

Please understand I'm not rejecting some of your questions as unimportant and would happily spend hours discussing the "cost" of interstellar flight or building a fleet of ships to take us there but I'm rejecting the idea that those hours or years cost me anything since I would have enjoyed every minute as I believe the whole world should enjoy the idea of spreading our life to the rest of the galaxy and further, like your Dolphins who didn't ask for a penny surviving, or perish here alone for the "price" of a ticket out.

After all the Hydrogen and Oxygen or even anti-matter were here long before our ancestors put a price tag on them.

It's nonsense governments and ideas that will fail us however benevolent we think we or they are. Bitcoin solves part of the problem by removing some of that fluffy nonsense therefore empowering a financial system that doesn't keep its population in abject poverty and debt.

I obviously touched a nerve and I'd prefer and even enjoy to answer your questions when everyone is calm.

It was a cunning plan to have the funny man be the money fan of the punning clan.1J13NBTKiV8xrAo2dwaD4LhWs3zPobhh5S

Please answer the questions I posed to you, as you made the claim that the Universe is essentially our free lunch.

I'm really curious why you don't rate Math along with the other things you think are so important like my position on a movie I haven't seen for example?

I made two separate statements, independent of each other.

Please address how the Universe is a free lunch for the taking.

I'm really curious why you don't rate Math along with the other things you think are so important like my position on a movie I may not have seen for example?

I would probably go on to say that some of your questions seem rather like "fluffy nonsense" but I prefer to keep the conversation less inflammatory and out of grade school and not for example fire back with a question like "How many dinosaurs are left on the planet?", although it does seem apropos.

A discourse on the Infinite should probably have started with a discussion of fractals or Cantor and Diagonalization not a list of seemingly pointed questions. Pointing at what is yet to be ascertained and no less interesting, though I assume you have some sort of trump card to play in an argument manufactured out of a simple comment and thin air.

The universe (to say nothing of the multiverse) is the ultimate free lunch since it itself, from Big Bang theory, is something out of nothing. From Quantum theory there is no such thing as nothing and yet somehow embedded in human society and the human psyche is the idea that there is no free lunch, so much so that we enslave ourselves and others by insisting that there can be nothing for nothing. Our schools, tenure, business/governments/trolls then go on to enforce this fallacy and see us languishing in failed closed time loops for eternity.

Einstein wasted thirty years of his life looking for the wrong theory of unification because his own religious beliefs forced him to imagine "God does not play dice." and Hawking willfully rejects an infinite universe not because of a failing in Math though he scrambles to design his theories to make it so, but why then? Could that also be an emotional hang up?

His argument is so weak as to beggar the question what he was thinking "The universe can't have infinite suns because then the sky would be ablaze.". Why not place the majority so far away, in theory, such that we'll never see or feel any of them? Isn't that how infinites work?

You might find emotions "fluffy nonsense", if that's what you are referring to, but they've played a part in keeping Humans in the dark ages ever since they existed. However useful or non-sensical they can be they certainly are not fluffy and when thrown about like a battering ram not pleasant at all.

Please understand I'm not rejecting some of your questions as unimportant and would happily spend hours discussing the "cost" of interstellar flight or building a fleet of ships to take us there but I'm rejecting the idea that those hours or years cost me anything since I would have enjoyed every minute as I believe the whole world should enjoy the idea of spreading our life to the rest of the galaxy and further, like your Dolphins who didn't ask for a penny surviving, or perish here alone for the "price" of a ticket out.

After all the Hydrogen and Oxygen or even anti-matter were here long before our ancestors put a price tag on them.

It's nonsense governments and ideas that will fail us however benevolent we think we or they are. Bitcoin solves part of the problem by removing some of that fluffy nonsense therefore empowering a financial system that doesn't keep its population in abject poverty and debt.

I obviously touched a nerve and I'd prefer and even enjoy to answer your questions when everyone is calm.

It was a cunning plan to have the funny man be the money fan of the punning clan.1J13NBTKiV8xrAo2dwaD4LhWs3zPobhh5S